Mumbai Court November 1938 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The Performing Right Society, Limited Vs. the Indian Morning Post Rest ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom347; (1939)41BOMLR530
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a suit in respect of an alleged infringement of copyright. Plaintiffs are a company having their registered office in London and are the present owners of a copyright in a musical work or composition called 'Classica', which copyright is still subsisting. They allege that the defendants infringed that copyright on March 23, 1937, by either performing the musical work or causing it to be performed on their premises without the plaintiffs' knowledge and consent. Plaintiffs have accordingly filed this suit for an injunction and damages through their constituted attorney Mr. Charles Mortimer Eastley, a partner of the firm of Messrs. Little & Co., attorneys of this Court.2. The defendants contended at first that the musical composition 'Classica' could not form the subject-matter of a copyright, and a commission was accordingly issued to England to take evidence on the point. That contention was, however, abandoned at the hearing. Defendants further denied that the ...
Emperor Vs. MohiddIn Bawasaheb Thakur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom97; (1939)41BOMLR93
Broomfield, J.1. These are companion revision applications in which the facts are similar and common points of law arise. The accused in one case is the agent of the Burma Shell Co. and the accused in the other is the agent of the Standard Oil Co. They both reside in Rajapur, which is a port on a creek in the Ratnagiri District and is also a notified area under the Bombay-District Municipal Act. Consignments of a number of tins of kerosene oil were sent to the accused from Bombay in country craft. The goods were first taken to Jaitapur, which is a port at the mouth of the creek. They were there declared for customs and transhipped into smaller boats in which they were conveyed to Rajapur. The accused there took delivery. The District Local Board has made rules and by-laws for the levy of an octroi on certain goods including kerosene oil imported into the district. There is a local board octroi naka at Jaitapur and it is in evidence that the nakedar at that place demanded payment of the...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Tata Sons Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1938
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR362
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Income-tax Commissioner under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The question which he raised is this:Whether in the circumstances of the case, in computing the assessees' income from their business as Managing Agents of the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. the payment of Rs. 2,94,308 to the co-sharers F.E. Dinshaw and Messrs F.E. Dinshaw, Ltd., out of the commission of Rs. 11,74,348 earned by them is allowable as an item of expenditure under Section (10)(2)(ix) of the Act or under any other provision thereof.2. The material facts are that by an agreement, dated May 2, 1918, the assessees were appointed managing agents of the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., and under that agreement they were entitled to receive a commission based on profits, with a minimum payment of Rs. 50,000 a year which was not dependent on profits. In the year 1924 the Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., was urgently in need of funds, and the ordinary practi...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Presidency Vs. Tata Sons Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom283; [1939]7ITR195(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Income-tax Commissioner under Section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The question which he has raised is this -'Whether in the circumstances of the case, in computing the assessees income from their business as Managing Agents of the Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., the payment of Rs. 2,94,308 to the co-sharers F. E. Dinshaw and Messrs. F. E. Dinshaw Ltd., out of the commission of Rs. 11,74,348 earned by them is allowable as an item of expenditure under Section 10 (2) (ix) of the Act or under any other provision thereof.'The material facts are that by an agreement, dated the 2nd May 1918, the assessees, were appointed managing agents of the Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., and under that agreement they were entitled to receive a commission based on profits, with a minimum payment of Rs. 50,000 a year, which was not dependent on profits. In the year 1924 the Tata Iron and Steel Co., Ltd., was urgently in need of funds, and the ordinary pr...
Emperor Vs. Dattatraya Ramchandra Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom95; (1939)41BOMLR82
Broomfield, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Honorary Magistrate, Municipal Court, imposing a fine of Rs. 25 on the applicant under Section 384A of the City of Bombay Municipal Act (Bom. III of 1888). The applicant is the owner of several chawls situate in Curry Road, Bombay, and occupied by mill-hands. One of the tenants in one of the chawls was keeping a goat and the Municipality took proceedings under Section 384A against the tenant, the applicant and his rent collector. The applicant has been convicted and fined as already stated and the proceedings against the others have been withdrawn. The question in this revision application is simply whether the owner of the premises is liable under Section 384A.2. The language of the section is as follows:Where a building or any portion thereof is used or intended to be used for human habitation and any portion of such building is used for any of the following purposes, namely,(a) for keeping any horse, cow, buffal...
Emperor Vs. Rameshwar Narayan Agarwal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom92; (1939)41BOMLR84
Broomfield, J.1. This is an application to revise an order made under Section 137 of the Criminal Procedure Code making absolute an order previously made under Section 133 by which the applicant was directed to close a flour mill erected by him on his premises in Malegaon Camp. In this revision application two points have been taken, first, that there is no legal evidence of the existence of a public nuisance, or to cite the relevant language of Section 133, no legal evidence that the conduct of the applicant's trade, that is to say this flour mill, is injurious to the health or physical comfort of the community. The second point is that even assuming that a public nuisance within the meaning of Section 133 be held to Be proved, it is not a case for prohibiting the use of the flour mill but for regulating it, and Section 133 permits an order regulating the conduct of any trade held to be offensive in such manner as the Court may direct.2. The proceedings were started by two complaints ...
Alimahomed Joosab Vs. Kasturchand Balabhai Jhaveri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom89; (1939)41BOMLR90
Broomfield, J.1. The facts in this case are as follows. One Kasturchand Balabhai brought a complaint against the petitioner Allimahomed Joosab in the year 1936 charging him with offences under Sections 420, 406 and 403 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was fixed for hearing on January 13, 1937. The complainant was absent on that day and the Magistrate then made the order 'Complainant absent. Accused discharged.' The section of the Criminal Procedure Code under which the Magistrate acted is not mentioned in the order. But it would seem that he must have had Section 259 in mind. The only other section is Section 253. He could not have acted under the first paragraph of Section 253 because no evidence had been taken, and he can hardly have acted under the second paragraph because, if he had, he was bound to give reasons for the discharge other than the mere fact of the complainant's absence.2. It is provided in Section 259 that when the complainant is absent, and the offence may be lawfu...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Metro-goldwyn Mayer (India) Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom257; (1939)41BOMLR379
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-Tax raising two questions : (1) Whether on the facts of this case, the Assistant Commissioner was right in law in deeming the assessees agents for Culvert Export Corporation, and (2) Whether on the facts of this case the Assistant Commissioner was correct in law in applying Rule 33 generally. We are told by Mr. Coltman for the assessees that the second question has been adjusted between the assessees and the Commissioner, and, by consent of the parties, that question is struck out and we only have to deal with the first question.2. The first question is not, I think, very happily expressed, because it seems to raise a question only under Section 43 of the Indian Income-Tax Act, whereas it is clear from the terms of the reference that the question arises both under Section 42 and under Section 43. If it was only a question under Section 43, it would be merely of academic interest. Section 42 provides :(1) ...
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. Metro Goldwyn Mayer (India) Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1938
Reported in: [1939]7ITR176(Bom)
BEAUMONT, C.J. - This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax raising two questions : (1) Whether on the facts of this case, the Assistant Commissioner was right in law in deeming the assessees agents for Culver Export Corporation, and (2) whether on the facts of this cases the Assistant Commissioner was correct in law in applying Rule 33 generally. We are told by Mr. Coltman for the assessees that the second question has been adjusted between the assessees and the Commissioner, and, by consent of the parties, that question is struck out and we only have to deal with the first question.The first question is not, I think, very happily expressed, because it seems to raise a question only under Section 43 of the Income-tax Act, whereas it is clear from the terms of the reference that the question raises both under Section 42 and under Section 43. It is was only a question under Section 43 it would be merely of academic interest. Section 42 provides :-'(1) In the case of any ...
The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Abubaker Abdul Rehman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1938
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR232
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66, Sub-section (2), of the Indian Income-tax Act, and the question raised, like a good many other questions under this Act, is not free from difficulty. Shortly, the question is whether income-tax should be assessed on the mutavalees of a wakf, or whether the tax should be assessed on the beneficiaries under the wakf deed. The deed of wakf is dated July 18, 1931, and by it certain immoveable properties were conveyed to trustees upon certain trusts, which, as amended by a later deed, are, stated shortly, to pay all charges for repairs, insurance and other outgoings out of the income and then to pay one-eighth of the balance of the income to the settlor's wife for life and the other' seven-eighths to the settlor's children. The one-eighth after the death of the wife is to follow the other seven-eighths, and putting it quite generally and so far only as is material for the purpose of the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »